STRICT PARTY DISCIPLINE _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Strict Party Discipline: Why it is Necessary for Responsible and Accountable Government Steven Yurkowski, Undergraduate Student Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB This paper was originally submitted for the course POLS 2070: Introduction to Canadian Government and was nominated for publication by the course instructor, Robert Ermel. Abstract Party discipline in a parliamentary setting is a widely discussed issue among scholars and experts who offer varying arguments about whether party discipline needs to be strengthened or loosened. This paper will be centred on the parliamentary system in Canada and will both explain, and support, the reasons in favour of strict party discipline. The central argument of this paper is that strict party discipline is vital in Canadian government and allows for accountability and responsibility of government actions to the Canadian public. To support this argument, this paper will begin by presenting the historical context of the changing roles of members of Parliament through voting discipline. Subsequently, a detailed account of how the executive and legislative branch deliver party discipline will be examined. To further support this argument, various reform strategies will be introduced which provide an alternative to Parliament dissolution and which might provide more responsibility and accountability to constituents. Keywords: Canadian government, party discipline, responsible government, accountability, lobby groups Introduction Modern representative democracy typically exists as a parliamentary system or as a presidential system of governance, with each having varying degree of power and control over legislature. The executive branch in a parliamentary system derives its legitimacy from, and is held directly accountable to, the legislature. In a parliamentary system, government must be accountable for their actions and must maintain party cohesion in voting behaviour, whereas in a presidential system, party cohesion is not mandatory. In a presidential system, the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch and is not responsible to the legislature. These two elements of representative democracies have diverse benefits, but also have varied opposition in terms of the degree of autonomy that elected representatives possess. In this regard, parliamentary systems impose party discipline on elected representatives to ensure responsible government. In presidential systems, elected representatives have greater autonomy in their _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Manitoba Policy Perspectives | Volume 2, Issue 1: September 2018 39 STRICT PARTY DISCIPLINE _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ability to act independently in the legislature to represent their constituents’ interests. To this end, there has been recent opposition to strict party discipline among those who argue that party discipline should loosen their hold on representatives to allow greater representation of regional and local constituents’ interests. This paper will argue that strict party discipline in Canada’s representative democracy allows for a more effective and legitimate government with greater accountability and responsibility towards the Canadian electorate. A brief historical context will be presented to understand the emergence of party discipline and its relation to responsible government. Next, several arguments for the necessity of strict party discipline, its benefit to Canada, and its ability to increase the accountability of government will be discussed. The critiques of strict party discipline will also be examined. This is to note the motion towards substantive reform measures of the kind that would allow elected representatives considerable autonomy to voice the concerns of constituents in legislature. Moreover, this paper will provide several reasons to think that loosening party discipline will result in greater misrepresentation of Canadians’ interests and will suggest that such a loosening of party discipline might lead to the influence of external interests, such as advocacy groups. Party Discipline; its Historical Roots and Development It is important to understand the purpose of party discipline through its constitutional origins in responsible government. A clear understanding of these concepts will further assist in the subsequent arguments of this paper. Party discipline is a term used in parliamentary systems which has several interpretations and applications, but, fundamentally, is concerned with the smooth operation of Parliament. In this paper, party discipline will be defined as the convention by which all members of Parliament (MPs) within a party vote together on every occurrence. Party discipline is reinforced by caucus meetings, orders from the prime minister in the governing party, and party whips (Dyck and Cochrane 2014, 685). Strict party discipline allows for a measure of ideological certainty within political parties and delineates the opposition party from the governing party; this certainty helps inform voters (Chodos et al. 2006). A key principle in the formation of party discipline is responsible government; this principle was embedded within the Constitution Act of 1867. Strict party discipline, in its promotion of party unity and solidarity in the House of Commons, is a required feature of responsible government. This is important since a government can be defeated on a confidence question. Responsible government ensures that the executive branch enjoys the confidence of a majority of its members in the elected assembly; it is the executive’s job to maintain confidence in the House of Commons (Docherty 1997, 138). When the government loses confidence in the House, either through bills or a confidence vote, the legitimacy of the executive diminishes, and the government must either call an election or resign (138). Responsible government also means that the government of the day is responsible and accountable for their actions to the Canadian _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Manitoba Policy Perspectives | Volume 2, Issue 1: September 2018 40 STRICT PARTY DISCIPLINE _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ public through the election process. Strict party discipline allows for an effective and legitimate government to function by expressing the minds of citizens through adopting legislation, amending legislation, and allocating resources (Savoie 2008, 48-49). Strict party discipline also allows for a stable government by providing assurance that it can pass its legislation program intact. Without strict party discipline, Parliament would simply be a collection of disparate individuals and, as a result, legislation would become more difficult to pass (Flavelle and Kaye 1986, 6). However, strict party discipline was not present in the early years of confederation; during the 1860s and the 1870s, parties were not fully cohesive or developed in scope (Lemco 1988, 287). According to Jonathan Lemco (1988): “Governments during this period were frequently defeated without any resignations. Private legislation was equal in importance as public legislation, and the sense of the will of the House was more important than that of party policy” (287). During this period, private members could defy the party whip and vote according to their conscience on legislation. In fact, during Prime Minister John A. Macdonald’s time in office, he referred to these private members as “loose fish” and “shaky fellows” because they were not primarily concerned with acting cohesively to achieve the party’s goals (quoted in Lemco 1988, 287). To further support this lack of party unity, the government of Macdonald was defeated six times on minor bills, yet, in defeat Macdonald did not dissolve parliament or call an election (287).1 Through advancements in electoral laws, parties began to become more cohesive and unified in their ideological views (which resulted in minimal dissent). Toward a more modern practice of party discipline, Joseph Wearing (1998) found that during the 35th Parliament (i.e. 1993-1997) dissent in any of the parties was only present 21.8 percent on recorded votes (cited in Malloy 2003, 117). This period is important to distinguish because it challenged the traditional notions of party discipline (Docherty 1997, 136). The existence of lower levels of dissent in the modern context of the Canadian parliamentary system is the result of strict party discipline. Historically, the two major parties (i.e. the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives) functioned as brokerage parties meant to appeal to as many interests needed to gain majority governments. On this view, brokering various interests does not allow for a consistent ideological focus but allows brokerage parties to represent various regional interests (Malloy 2003, 117-118). Brokering various regional interests enables government to supplement their party’s personal cohesion with strong party discipline to lower dissent levels and to stay